Obama and The West Bank

The current issue of The Economist encourages President Obama not to give up on The West Bank. Although, it says, he has so far "failed to show evidence of even a whiff of progress," he can show some if he "spells out his own vision" and becomes personally involved in negotiations. The Economist also suggests that if Obama were to consider reducing aid to Israel until it complies with his wishes, he might be able to further the peace process.

President Obama is, I think, unlikely to heed the former recommendations. He has not shown himself particularly able to form his own vision at home, much less abroad. Consider the healthcare debate. Obama has spoken vaguely of a healthcare plan, but he is not sure exactly what it will look like. The house and senate have been mulling over several ideas, and have produced several versions of a healthcare bill and some have turned to Max Baucus for ideas. Yet, there is no real Obama vision – or, if there is, he has failed to express it clearly.

The president might, however, take The Economist's last piece of advice. The Economist criticizes the US for its knee-jerk support of Israel in forums like the UN. But Obama has shown none of this knee-jerkiness toward our other traditional allies. I have written before about his poor treatment of the UK and of Gordon Brown, as well as his recent desertion of Bush's plan for a missile shield in Poland and the Czech Republic. It is very possible, then, that Obama will take The Economist's advice. I hope he will not. This would be a bad time for such a move. Iran has just been accused of developing a nuclear warhead. Although some in Iran have declared the United States to be Iran's number one enemy, Israel is closer and hated greatly. She could use an ally now.

Comments

[Jerry]

President Obama, in pressuring Israel about "settlements" and describing Judea and Samaria as "occupied," has done more to support terrorism than any US president. Legally, the West Bank is "disputed," not occupied. But Mr. Obama decides the outcome of negotiations before they take place when so designating that area.

Moreover, he fails to recognize the absolute good that Israel does for the United States by choosing to pressure an ally instead of a corrupt regime like Iran. Israeli technical armor has saved numerous American soldiers from certain death and Israeli unmanned aerial vehicle technology has improve the performance of US products and reduced the "collateral" damage - the death of civilians in Afghanistan. In return Mr. Obama has canceled the F-22 Raptor fighter-bomber, putting more than 9000 Americans out of work only so as not to have to sell it to Israel or Japan. In effect, he canceled an export program capable of reducing the US trade deficit.

[Miranda Flint]

Thanks Jerry. While I'm not sure I would go so far as to say that Obama has deliberately aided the cause of terrorists, I do agree with you that Israel deserves better. The heroism of its people should not be dismissed and we should think twice before selling them out to those who despise us.